Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 4 — Commitments and Contingencies: *Contingency Matters* In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-14020 (D.N.J.) On October 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated into In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv 14020-JXN-CLW, two putative class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September 13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On October 10, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint that superseded the original complaints in In re CorMedix Securities Litigation. In the second amended complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities between October 16, 2019 and August 8, 2022, inclusive; and (ii) shareholders who purchased CorMedix securities pursuant or traceable to the Company’s November 27, 2020 offering pursuant to CorMedix’s Form S-3 Registration Statement, its Prospectus Supplement, dated November 27, 2020, and its Prospectus Supplement, dated August 12, 2021. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and twelve (12) current and former directors and officers of CorMedix, namely Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, John L. Armstrong, and Joseph Todisco (the “Officer Defendants” and collectively with CorMedix, the “CorMedix Defendants”) as well as Janet Dillione, Myron Kaplan, Alan W. Dunton, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan (the “Director Defendants”). The second amended complaint alleges that the CorMedix Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5), the Officer Defendants violated Section 20(a), the Director Defendants, CorMedix, Baluch, and David violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and that the Director Defendants, Baluch, and David violated Section 15. In general, the purported bases for these claims are allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions related to the NDA submissions to the FDA for DefenCath, subsequent complete response letters, as well as communications from the FDA related and directed to the Company’s contract manufacturing organization and heparin supplier. The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims. The Company and the other Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 23, 2022; the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss on January 7, 2023; and Defendants filed their reply brief on February 6, 2023. In re CorMedix Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.) On or about October 13, 2021, a purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled Voter v. Baluch, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (the “Derivative Litigation”). The complaint names as defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets against the defendants and a claim for contribution for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against certain defendants. The individual defendants intend to vigorously contest such claims. On January 21, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court entered an order staying the case while the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit described in the foregoing paragraph is pending. The stay may be terminated before the motion to dismiss is resolved according to certain circumstances described in the stipulation available on the Court’s public docket. On or about January 13, 2023, another purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled DeSalvo v. Costa, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00150-JXN-CLW. Defendants Paulo F. Costa, Janet D. Dillione, Greg Duncan, Alan Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Joseph Todisco, Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, and John L. Armstrong along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants. On or about January 25, 2023, another purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled Scullion v. Baluch, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00406-ES-ESK. Defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Gregory Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts, along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties. On or about April 18, 2023, the Court entered an order consolidating the above-mentioned shareholder derivative complaints for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial and appeal. The consolidated derivative action is entitled, In re CorMedix Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW. The provisions of the Order to Stay entered in the Voter Action on January 21, 2022, apply to the consolidated derivative action. The consolidated derivative action was then administratively terminated and removed from the Court’s docket until the motion to dismiss the class action is resolved. The individual defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims set forth in the consolidated derivative action when the case moves forward. Demand Letter On or about June 23, 2022, the Company’s Board received a letter demanding it investigate and pursue causes of action, purportedly on behalf of Company, against certain current and former directors, officers, and/or other employees of the Company (the “Letter”), which the Board believes are duplicative of the claims already asserted in the Derivative Litigation. As set forth in the Board’s response to the Letter, the Board will consider the Letter at an appropriate time, as circumstances warrant, as it continues to monitor the progress of the Derivative Litigation. Patent Infringement On September 9, 2014, the Company filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, (the “Court”) a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the “Defendants”) claiming infringement of the Company’s European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the European Patent Office (the “EPO”) on January 8, 2014 (the “Prosl European Patent”). The Company is seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step. In the same complaint against the same Defendants, the Company also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of ND Partners’ utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the “Utility Model”), which the Company believes is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims were tried separately. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the “German PTO”) based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent. The District Court of Mannheim issued its decisions on May 8, 2015, staying both proceedings as it determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by the Company for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO made a final decision on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model. The German PTO declared that the Utility Model was invalid. The Company filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016. The German Federal Patent Court affirmed the first instance decision that the Utility Model was invalid. The decision has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015. On April 28, 2020, the Company filed a withdrawal of the complaint on the German utility model, thereby waiving its claims on these proceedings. The proceedings were closed and during the year ended December 31, 2020, final reimbursement of approximately $30,000 for the costs in connection with the utility model infringement were paid to TauroPharm. On November 22, 2017, the EPO in Munich, Germany held that the Prosl European Patent would be invalidated. The Company disagrees with this decision and has appealed the decision. In a hearing on October 27, 2022 before the EPO Board of Appeals, the Board expressed the view that the patent claims of the Prosl European Patent on file were not inventive over prior art presented by TauroPharm. The Company thus withdrew its appeal against the first instance decision. This means that the invalidation of the patent has become final and that, as a consequence, the infringement proceedings, which are formally still ongoing, will also be closed because there is no underlying patent anymore. In order to avoid a dismissal, on January 12, 2023, the Company withdrew the infringement action with prejudice. Due to the withdrawal, there will be no decision on the merits, however, on March 9, 2023, the District Court of Mannheim issued a decision that the Company has to bear the cost of the proceedings. Given that the court fees have already been paid by the Company, the cost of the proceedings are the costs that will have to be reimbursed to the Defendants, i.e., mainly statutory attorney’s fees and expenses. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, the Company alleged violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm and that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm’s products TauroLock^TM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500. The Company sought a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. A decision was rendered by the court on December 11, 2018, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The Company therefore appealed in January 2019. At the end of an oral hearing held on June 18, 2021, the Court indicated that it would dismiss the complaint of the Company, if the Company did not withdraw the appeal. As there were no advantages to further pursuing the matter in view of the Court’s statements, the Company withdrew the appeal and the proceedings are therefore now closed. The Company reimbursed costs in the amount of approximately $41,000 plus interest to TauroPharm. In connection with the aforementioned patent and utility model infringement and unfair competition proceedings against TauroPharm, the Company was required by the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne to provide security deposits to cover legal fees in the event TauroPharm is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. As of March 31, 2023, the aggregate deposit was approximately $126,000, which the Company recorded as restricted cash on the consolidated balance sheets. On February 8, 2023, the Regional Court of Cologne informed the Company that the security deposit in two proceedings (81 HL 448/15 and 81 HL 903/19), in the amount of 36,000 EUR and 10,000 EUR, (approximately in aggregate of $50,000), are in the process of being refunded to the Company. To summarize, one of the infringement proceedings initiated on September 9, 2014 before the District Court of Mannheim, has been terminated after the Company’s withdrawal of the action; the parallel validity proceedings before the German Federal Patent Court are also terminated. The other infringement proceeding initiated on September 9, 2014 before the District Court of Mannheim is in its final stages; the parallel validity proceeding before the European Patent Office is also terminated. After the Company withdrew the infringement action and TauroPharm consented to the withdrawal, there is no decision on the merits, but the court issued a decision that the Company has to bear the costs of the proceedings. A complaint filed on January 16, 2015 against TauroPharm in the District Court of Cologne, has been withdrawn by the Company and the proceedings were closed. In connection with the aforementioned proceedings, the Company was required to provide security deposits to the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne in the aggregate amount of approximately $126,000, of which approximately $50,000 are in the process of being refunded to the Company. *Commitments* In-Licensing In 2008, the Company entered into a License and Assignment Agreement (the “NDP License Agreement”) with ND Partners, LLP (“NDP”). Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted the Company exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the “NDP Technology”). The Company acquired such licenses and patents through its assignment and assumption of NDP’s rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, the Company paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP a 5% equity interest in the Company, consisting of 7,996 shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company is required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones is 29,109 shares. In 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 7,277 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of March 31, 2023 is 21,832 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments due upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with the balance being $2,500,000 as of March 31, 2023 and 2022. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval and upon achieving certain worldwide net sales amounts. There were no milestones achieved during the quarters ended March 31, 2023 and 2022. The NDP License Agreement may be terminated by the Company on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company’s rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Note 4 — Commitments and Contingencies:

Contingency Matters

In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-14020 (D.N.J.)

On October 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated into In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv 14020-JXN-CLW, two putative class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September 13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On October 10, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint that superseded the original complaints in In re CorMedix Securities Litigation. In the second amended complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities between October 16, 2019 and August 8, 2022, inclusive; and (ii) shareholders who purchased CorMedix securities pursuant or traceable to the Company’s November 27, 2020 offering pursuant to CorMedix’s Form S-3 Registration Statement, its Prospectus Supplement, dated November 27, 2020, and its Prospectus Supplement, dated August 12, 2021. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and twelve (12) current and former directors and officers of CorMedix, namely Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, John L. Armstrong, and Joseph Todisco (the “Officer Defendants” and collectively with CorMedix, the “CorMedix Defendants”) as well as Janet Dillione, Myron Kaplan, Alan W. Dunton, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan (the “Director Defendants”). The second amended complaint alleges that the CorMedix Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5), the Officer Defendants violated Section 20(a), the Director Defendants, CorMedix, Baluch, and David violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and that the Director Defendants, Baluch, and David violated Section 15. In general, the purported bases for these claims are allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions related to the NDA submissions to the FDA for DefenCath, subsequent complete response letters, as well as communications from the FDA related and directed to the Company’s contract manufacturing organization and heparin supplier. The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims. The Company and the other Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 23, 2022; the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss on January 7, 2023; and Defendants filed their reply brief on February 6, 2023.

In re CorMedix Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.)

On or about October 13, 2021, a purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled Voter v. Baluch, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW (the “Derivative Litigation”). The complaint names as defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets against the defendants and a claim for contribution for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against certain defendants. The individual defendants intend to vigorously contest such claims. On January 21, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court entered an order staying the case while the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit described in the foregoing paragraph is pending. The stay may be terminated before the motion to dismiss is resolved according to certain circumstances described in the stipulation available on the Court’s public docket.

On or about January 13, 2023, another purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled DeSalvo v. Costa, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00150-JXN-CLW. Defendants Paulo F. Costa, Janet D. Dillione, Greg Duncan, Alan Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Joseph Todisco, Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, and John L. Armstrong along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants.

On or about January 25, 2023, another purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled Scullion v. Baluch, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00406-ES-ESK. Defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Gregory Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts, along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties.

On or about April 18, 2023, the Court entered an order consolidating the above-mentioned shareholder derivative complaints for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial and appeal. The consolidated derivative action is entitled, In re CorMedix Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW. The provisions of the Order to Stay entered in the Voter Action on January 21, 2022, apply to the consolidated derivative action. The consolidated derivative action was then administratively terminated and removed from the Court’s docket until the motion to dismiss the class action is resolved. The individual defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims set forth in the consolidated derivative action when the case moves forward.

Demand Letter

On or about June 23, 2022, the Company’s Board received a letter demanding it investigate and pursue causes of action, purportedly on behalf of Company, against certain current and former directors, officers, and/or other employees of the Company (the “Letter”), which the Board believes are duplicative of the claims already asserted in the Derivative Litigation. As set forth in the Board’s response to the Letter, the Board will consider the Letter at an appropriate time, as circumstances warrant, as it continues to monitor the progress of the Derivative Litigation.

Patent Infringement

On September 9, 2014, the Company filed in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany, (the “Court”) a patent infringement action against TauroPharm GmbH and Tauro-Implant GmbH as well as their respective CEOs (the “Defendants”) claiming infringement of the Company’s European Patent EP 1 814 562 B1, which was granted by the European Patent Office (the “EPO”) on January 8, 2014 (the “Prosl European Patent”). The Company is seeking injunctive relief and raising claims for information, rendering of accounts, calling back, destruction and damages. Separately, TauroPharm has filed an opposition with the EPO against the Prosl European Patent alleging that it lacks novelty and inventive step.

In the same complaint against the same Defendants, the Company also alleged an infringement (requesting the same remedies) of ND Partners’ utility model DE 20 2005 022 124 U1 (the “Utility Model”), which the Company believes is fundamentally identical to the Prosl European Patent in its main aspects and claims. The Court separated the two proceedings and the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model claims were tried separately. TauroPharm has filed a cancellation action against the Utility Model before the German Patent and Trademark Office (the “German PTO”) based on the similar arguments as those in the opposition against the Prosl European Patent.

The District Court of Mannheim issued its decisions on May 8, 2015, staying both proceedings as it determined that it will defer any consideration of the request by the Company for injunctive and other relief until such time as the EPO or the German PTO made a final decision on the underlying validity of the Prosl European Patent and the Utility Model.

The German PTO declared that the Utility Model was invalid. The Company filed an appeal against the ruling on September 7, 2016. The German Federal Patent Court affirmed the first instance decision that the Utility Model was invalid. The decision has only a declaratory effect, as the Utility Model had expired in November 2015. On April 28, 2020, the Company filed a withdrawal of the complaint on the German utility model, thereby waiving its claims on these proceedings. The proceedings were closed and during the year ended December 31, 2020, final reimbursement of approximately $30,000 for the costs in connection with the utility model infringement were paid to TauroPharm.

On November 22, 2017, the EPO in Munich, Germany held that the Prosl European Patent would be invalidated. The Company disagrees with this decision and has appealed the decision. In a hearing on October 27, 2022 before the EPO Board of Appeals, the Board expressed the view that the patent claims of the Prosl European Patent on file were not inventive over prior art presented by TauroPharm. The Company thus withdrew its appeal against the first instance decision. This means that the invalidation of the patent has become final and that, as a consequence, the infringement proceedings, which are formally still ongoing, will also be closed because there is no underlying patent anymore. In order to avoid a dismissal, on January 12, 2023, the Company withdrew the infringement action with prejudice. Due to the withdrawal, there will be no decision on the merits, however, on March 9, 2023, the District Court of Mannheim issued a decision that the Company has to bear the cost of the proceedings. Given that the court fees have already been paid by the Company, the cost of the proceedings are the costs that will have to be reimbursed to the Defendants, i.e., mainly statutory attorney’s fees and expenses.

On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against TauroPharm GmbH and its managing directors in the District Court of Cologne, Germany. In the complaint, the Company alleged violation of the German Unfair Competition Act by TauroPharm and that TauroPharm is improperly and unfairly using its proprietary information relating to the composition and manufacture of Neutrolin, in the manufacture and sale of TauroPharm’s products TauroLock^TM, TauroLock-HEP100 and TauroLock-HEP500. The Company sought a cease and desist order against TauroPharm from continuing to manufacture and sell any product containing taurolidine (the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) of Neutrolin) and citric acid in addition to possible other components, damages for any sales in the past and the removal of all such products from the market. A decision was rendered by the court on December 11, 2018, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The Company therefore appealed in January 2019. At the end of an oral hearing held on June 18, 2021, the Court indicated that it would dismiss the complaint of the Company, if the Company did not withdraw the appeal. As there were no advantages to further pursuing the matter in view of the Court’s statements, the Company withdrew the appeal and the proceedings are therefore now closed. The Company reimbursed costs in the amount of approximately $41,000 plus interest to TauroPharm.

In connection with the aforementioned patent and utility model infringement and unfair competition proceedings against TauroPharm, the Company was required by the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne to provide security deposits to cover legal fees in the event TauroPharm is entitled to reimbursement of these costs. As of March 31, 2023, the aggregate deposit was approximately $126,000, which the Company recorded as restricted cash on the consolidated balance sheets. On February 8, 2023, the Regional Court of Cologne informed the Company that the security deposit in two proceedings (81 HL 448/15 and 81 HL 903/19), in the amount of 36,000 EUR and 10,000 EUR, (approximately in aggregate of $50,000), are in the process of being refunded to the Company.

To summarize, one of the infringement proceedings initiated on September 9, 2014 before the District Court of Mannheim, has been terminated after the Company’s withdrawal of the action; the parallel validity proceedings before the German Federal Patent Court are also terminated. The other infringement proceeding initiated on September 9, 2014 before the District Court of Mannheim is in its final stages; the parallel validity proceeding before the European Patent Office is also terminated. After the Company withdrew the infringement action and TauroPharm consented to the withdrawal, there is no decision on the merits, but the court issued a decision that the Company has to bear the costs of the proceedings. A complaint filed on January 16, 2015 against TauroPharm in the District Court of Cologne, has been withdrawn by the Company and the proceedings were closed. In connection with the aforementioned proceedings, the Company was required to provide security deposits to the District Courts of Mannheim and Cologne in the aggregate amount of approximately $126,000, of which approximately $50,000 are in the process of being refunded to the Company.

Commitments

In-Licensing

In 2008, the Company entered into a License and Assignment Agreement (the “NDP License Agreement”) with ND Partners, LLP (“NDP”). Pursuant to the NDP License Agreement, NDP granted the Company exclusive, worldwide licenses for certain antimicrobial catheter lock solutions, processes for treating and inhibiting infections, a biocidal lock system and a taurolidine delivery apparatus, and the corresponding United States and foreign patents and applications (the “NDP Technology”). The Company acquired such licenses and patents through its assignment and assumption of NDP’s rights under certain separate license agreements by and between NDP and Dr. Hans-Dietrich Polaschegg, Dr. Klaus Sodemann and Dr. Johannes Reinmueller. As consideration in part for the rights to the NDP Technology, the Company paid NDP an initial licensing fee of $325,000 and granted NDP a 5% equity interest in the Company, consisting of 7,996 shares of the Company’s common stock.

The Company is required to make payments to NDP upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales-based milestones. Certain of the milestone payments are to be made in the form of shares of common stock currently held in escrow for NDP, and other milestone payments are to be paid in cash. The maximum aggregate number of shares issuable upon achievement of milestones is 29,109 shares. In 2014, a certain milestone was achieved resulting in the release of 7,277 shares held in escrow. The number of shares held in escrow as of March 31, 2023 is 21,832 shares of common stock. The maximum aggregate amount of cash payments due upon achievement of milestones is $3,000,000 with the balance being $2,500,000 as of March 31, 2023 and 2022. Events that trigger milestone payments include but are not limited to the reaching of various stages of regulatory approval and upon achieving certain worldwide net sales amounts. There were no milestones achieved during the quarters ended March 31, 2023 and 2022.

The NDP License Agreement may be terminated by the Company on a country-by-country basis upon 60 days prior written notice. If the NDP License Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company’s rights to the NDP Technology will revert back to NDP.